The Reasonable Solution

Oh poor malnourished blog, how I've neglected you.  Soon I'll have some new material for you to devour and we'll both be happy again.

The last 24 hours have revealed... not a whole lot actually.  I'm not even talking about my personal life [obviously] but I mean mentally.  I've been somewhat on a mental vacation since summer started.  Semi-preoccupied with common everyday routines and monotony.  But this is the week for writing, so that's exactly what I intend to do.  Perhaps even now!

Okay, lets discuss... the reason why I personally do not believe that everlasting peace will grace this Earth.

The main reasoning behind this idea that I possess quite ardently, is this:

There are too many people, with too many opinions.

Please don't get the wrong impression, and think that I believe it is a bad thing [although if it's contributing in large part, to the lack of peace in the world, I cannot suppose it is that great].

Here is why it is a problem.  We have six billion [nearing seven billion] human inhabitants of this world.  Nearly.  Seven.  Billion.

Okay so let's use a simple analogy to understand why this number makes it near impossible for us all to get along.

Suppose, for a moment, that our personalities were displayed as snowflakes.  Singularly, you can see how different and unique they are from one another.  If you could pick them up and sort them (without damaging them as to their appearance) you'd be likely to find some that look more jagged, and some with softer edges, while some would be intricate and others would be dull.  Although no two are exactly the same, many can be categorized as "somewhat similar".  These groups, lets say, are organized on the majority structure of the snowflake, so sure, it might have some soft edges, but it's mostly jagged so it's placed in that category.  So even though we have personalities that are very similar they're not exactly the same and that is due to how they came to exist, up unto that moment.

So we have vastly different personalities, but not too different or none of us would get along at all.  We can't always agree on everything [as I've discussed in the previous entry, about subjective realities] so we are blessed and condemned with diversity.

Considering the similarities and differences, there is a seemingly infinite amount of disagreements that could arise on all sorts of topics.  The product of world peace would come from world unity.  The only way I see that happening, is if we gather up all our little snowflakes and pack them together.  Make us into a snowball.  We cannot progress until we have a solid foundation on which to build, and without that we're just flakes of snow on the ground.

I find it hard for us to find that unifying aspect that places our differences aside and would give us that universal realization, but I think the answer lies somewhere in our race.  We are human beings.  Each and every one of us is part of the human race, and we should be acting as a whole, not fighting against each other.  Imagine the possibilities if only we could transcend our self-centered lives and ways.  We fall so easily into the comfortable everyday habits that relegate this extremely important task to the back of our minds.  Perhaps it lies not even there.

Do you not see the value in such a worldwide preoccupation?  I do.

So I've given the unifying aspect a great deal of thought, as you might've guessed.  There are only a few things that will metaphorically slap us in the face and make us realize that we are as one, and should be acting that way.

One of such circumstances would find our countries regrettably descending into nuclear war, where mostly everyone is destroyed.  Those who survive will be few in numbers but it is likely that they will band together to survive [hopefully!].

The second instance would occur if there were some worldwide catastrophe that required the efforts of every nation to avoid the destruction of all intelligent life on our planet.  In such an instance, however, I fear that as generations grow from this almost-catastrophic event they would once again plunge into division.

The last circumstance that I could see potentially unifying us is the discovery of intelligent life in a race besides that of our own, elsewhere.  We would then, no longer need to specify what nationality or heritage, because it would all dissolve away in the face of the question "Are you human or otherwise?"

I'm not certain as to whether I'll live to see the day when we finally unite as one, but I wholeheartedly hope that I do.

Until then,

I'm off.

Truth and Reality

So I found something extremely disturbing this morning upon waking up.  My mind has complete control over my reality and there is really not much I can do about it.  I had a dream where I went to this doctor and they were testing my reflexes [by hitting my knee with a hammer] and my leg didn't kick.  The doctor stood outside talking to my mother and explained to her that the reason why I wasn't reacting was due to the fact that I was a government sponsored android.  Upon waking up I was completely convinced for a few minutes that I actually was a robot.  Then as rationality seeped back into my brain I realized it was just a dream.  The fact that temporarily, I actually thought I was an automaton, I found to be extremely disturbing.  Why can my brain suspend reality in such a way?  What would happen if it transcended dreams and poured over into real life?  Can it do such a thing?  A friend once asked me if we could be certain that dreams aren't reality.  I scoffed and answered "That's easy, continuity.  Or even better, consequence.  In a dream you can do anything and come back the next night and it's completely new, and everything you did in the previous dream has no bearing on the next."  Then he said, "Consequence?  Continuity?  That's just how we define this reality."

Also, yesterday, I had an hour long conversation with a friend about the definition of family...  He was supposing that even if someone was not married in, or blood-related that they could be family, if they were a close friend.  I told him that could never be.  No matter what in any sense, this "close friend", would not be family unless they married in, or were adopted in.  We argued semantics for a long time, scouring the definitions for family to find the true definition until he asked me "What makes your definition right, and mine wrong?"  I had no response for that really, because, honestly I don't know if mine is right, or his is.  I just know that logically the strictest interpretation of the definitions already set down, don't include this friend he's talking about.  He told me that definitions are just peoples ideas of things anyway, and that just because a mass group of people agree on what a word means, doesn't mean that it's true.  You see, for him, despite this definition, he considers this friend to be family.

We ended the discussion by agreeing that reality is subjective.

Let me give an example:  Lets say I've never seen a tarsier before.  [^ See above picture]  If I had never seen a tarsier, and came across one in nature, it's very likely that I would, without a definition or knowledge of the animal, assume it is an alien.  Now in that moment, I'm looking at an alien and it is as real to me as anything else.  But perhaps someone more experienced with animals would recognize it, so to them, they know it's just a tiny primate.  Respectively we both have different realities.

This example leads to only one conclusion, and the conclusion is that time will lead to truth.  No matter what we think is true, or what we assume to be reality, eventually time will reveal all secrets.

On a more serious level of understanding truth, though, we should look to right and wrong.  This is a discussion that can be puzzled over between people for ages.  It seems that in any given population there is a very general understanding of what is right and wrong.  For example, here in America we base most of that off of our laws, and some include "moral" reasonings from their religion.  I'm not here to argue against religion I'm just questioning the existence of actual truth [aside from scientific, of course].  

Okay, so lets give you an example to make things more clear on truth. 

A corporation that sells candy bars notices in their fiscal report that they had a dramatic increase in their sales this year.  They decide to take advantage of this opportunity.  So to grow their company and annual income, they raise the price for their candy bar $1.  Now let's say a friend of mine commonly enjoys this candy bar, before the price hike.  Let's say it's his favorite candy bar ever.  So naturally he, like a lot of other people, are upset that this delicious item is now more pricy than earlier.  Now this friend, sees it as wrong that the company is ripping off the customer by taking an extra dollar for the same exact product.  To him, justifying that would be paying only the original amount, or to steal it and get it for free.  Now to him, the company was screwing him over, and doing him a disservice by being greedy.  To the company, if he and lots of others like him started stealing the candy bars instead, they would see it as people being cheap.  He views the company as bad, the company views him as bad.

You're likely to side with the company mainly because of the laws our system has put into place.  But why are those laws in place?  They protect the company but not the customer.  Sure the company can go changing its prices all it wants, but there's no negotiating.  I suppose the reason for that is the government assumes that competition will drive out all "unfair" prices and even the market by itself.

Well that example didn't really turn out too well.  

Let's take murder, instead.  This seems to be a more potent and reasonable question.  Our country is strongly against the murder of a person by a civilians hand.  But look more closely, and you'll find that our country is murdering inmates.  "Put to death" they call it.  What gives that policeman or whoever is pulling the lever, or injecting the needle to be exempt from the charge of murder, and not us?  The law.  And who determines the law?  Us?  No... congress.  They make up the laws, and then through a complex series of checks and balances the law is either approved or denied.  Now, are we accepting the laws mainly because they're morally right?  Or because they have repercussions?  If you chose the first one, and you have faith that your government wouldn't make a law that wasn't good, correct, or helpful, realize that these are other people making laws for you.

Then question why it is alright that their system deems who is to be killed, and who is to be left alive and punished.  Lets say some guy kills my kids.  Now I take him to court and he is acquitted.  Let's also say that I have no doubt that he killed them because I saw him do it.  But there wasn't enough evidence and I have bias testimony, as their father.  But the courts let him go!  Now lets say in that situation, I find and kill this man.  Guess who would end up in prison.  Probably me.  We rely on our government to give us truth, but when you realize that it is all interpretive and subjective, our government doesn't seem to function properly at all.

And what do I mean by properly?  I mean that it's not functioning within the parameters that I consider to be acceptable.  To you they might be functioning perfectly.  What makes truth?  The mass agreement on topics?

Even the mass agreement on things doesn't make it true.  To cite an example, I took this class in high school called "Mysteries of Science".  In this class we discussed the theory of extraterrestrial life.  In one instance there was a town of people that either heard, saw or felt something [i don't remember which] spectacular that led them to believe they had witnessed an alien spaceship.  Later on it was discovered that there was a strong magnetic force in the town, magnetic as in literally, not interest-wise.  They [the scientists or whoever made the discovery] decided that all 300 something of the claims were void because this stream of magnetism had affected the towns mind and caused them to hallucinate.  Now I don't doubt they told the town this, but I bet you that if you asked anyone in that town, they'd all swear that they saw it, and that it was real.

Now 300 people say that they saw a UFO of some sort.  Scientists say that they were all hallucinating.  Who is right?  Probably the scientists as, magnetic fields do affect the brain in some adverse fashion.  But, in this instance if there were no scientists to find this magnetic field, everyone would believe them.

So reality is subjective to your experience.  We'll only be certain of things until we find out they too, are not true.  As the great Richard Feynman once said "... Then is it right? No, it is simply not proved wrong ... Tomorrow's experiments may succeed in proving what you thought was right wrong.  So we never are right, we can only be sure we're wrong."

Vision

There is a speck on the lens of accomplishment.  And they call that speck procrastination.

First blog ever.

So this is new.  I've never "Blogged" before.  I've kept an online journal for 5 years, but that's completely private.  Or as private as I can make it.  Anyway, moving on.  I made this for two reasons.  I'm procrastinating two difficult papers that I have to write for wednesday, and I also wanted to get my thoughts out there.  This one, however will not contain any thoughts, besides my idea of an introduction.  I won't use my real name for particular reasons, but know that I'm a writer.  I haven't published a book yet, but I'm currently in the process of writing one.  I write daily, and I guess that this will be a testament to that.  What exactly does one post for their first blog?  I do wonder.  However, this is as much time today that I can spare to start up something new, so I'll leave you with this and the promise of more interesting reading for later.

Until then...